Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1315 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Pirabhai Lalabhai Rabari

2016-07-14

R.P.DHOLARIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. The appellant State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 15.4.2006 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court at Deesa, District Banaskantha in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 127 of 2005. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that while the complainant was doing the agricultural work in the field of Haribhai along with prosecution witness Lilabhai Mevabhai, the respondent accused came to the field of the complainant and started to give filthy abuses. It is alleged that the respondent accused also got enraged and gave kick and fist blows to the complainant. It is also alleged that the respondent also threatened the complainant to kill him. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged against the respondents accused. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the chargesheet against the respondent accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3.1 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses and produced the documentary evidence such as complaint Exh. 17, panchnama of scene of offence Exh. 8, school leaving certificate Exh. 15, certificate regarding caste Exh. 14 etc. 3.2 At the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the CrPC and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 5. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of acquittal. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be reversed, as such. 5.1 Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP appearing for the appellant State has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 5.1 Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP appearing for the appellant State has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. He submitted that though the complainant as well as other witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, learned trial Court has not believed the said evidence and wrongfully acquitted the accused. He has urged that order of acquittal is required to be reversed and the respondent is required to be convicted, as such. 6. On the other-hand, Mr. Dipen Chaudhry, learned advocate for the respondents accused has taken this Court through the entire evidence on record and submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge is just and proper. Mr. Chaudhry further submitted that in view of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge has committed any error in passing the impugned order acquitting the accused. He further submitted that this is a clear case wherein no iota of evidence is available against the accused. He submitted that though quarrel appears to have taken place, but of the witnesses are describing as to what short of words are spoken by the accused. He submitted that even otherwise also, almost entire investigation is carried by the Police Sub Inspector and hence mandatory provisions as prescribed under Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995 are violated. He, therefore, submitted that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. This Court has heard Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP for the appellant State and Mr. Dipen Chaudhry, learned advocate for the respondents accused. 8. This Court has gone through the paper book as well as the impugned judgment rendered by learned trial Court. As per the prosecution version, while the complainant was working in the agricultural field, the present respondent intervened, due to which some altercation appears to have taken place and it is alleged that the present respondent uttered derogatory words concerning to the caste of the complainant and hence, the respondent has committed the offence under sections 323, 504, 506(2) of IPC and section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 8.1 On overall analysis of the evidence on record and the Record and Proceedings made available to this Court by the respective parties to the proceedings, it appears that learned trial Court in its judgment, more particularly, in paragraphs 9 and 10 has properly appreciated the oral evidence on record and has recorded the finding that though altercation as regards to the incident took place, but the prosecution failed to bring on record as to what sort of derogatory words concerning to the caste of the complainant were spoken by the accused and even the complaint has been lodged after two days. The investigation is carried out by the Police Sub Inspector though Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules prescribes mandatorily that in such cases, the investigation is required to be carried out by a Police Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Admittedly, in the present case, the investigation is carried out by the Police Sub Inspector and subsequently, verification appears to have been made by the Deputy Superintend of Police. Therefore, there is a clear violation of the provisions of Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove any of the offence as alleged against the respondent accused. 9. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeals, the appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. 10. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondents of the charges leveled against them. This Court finds that the findings recorded by learned trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. This Court is, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by learned court below and hence finds no reasons to interfere with the same. 11. In the result, this appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.